Salaries of the County Court Judges.

Judges.

(Signed)

"HENRY FITZROY."

403

From Mr. Wilson's letter from the Treasury, of 17th October, to the Home Office, we extract the following::

your letter of the 5th instant, transmitting with indeed it should not be extended to all these reference to the application made by Mr. Serjeant Jones, Judge of the Clerkenwell County Court, circuit 42, for the maximum salary of 1,500l., allowed by the Act, a copy of a minute of the Treasury Board upon the claims of the Judges of the different circuits to the maximum salaries. And I am to acquaint you, for the information of the Lords Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury, that Lord Palmerston has no doubt the arrangement stated in the four columns of the paper inclosed in your letter, form, as far as they go, elements by which to estimate the relative labour of the several circuits to which those tables apply; but it is to be observed that, if the object is to class the circuits according to the labour imposed upon each Judge, and the time employed by him in the performance of his duties, there is another element to be taken into account, which is not included in those tables, and that is the distances to be traversed by each Judge in the course of the year, in the performance of his duties, and the bodily fatigue attendant upon his journies; and his lordship apprehends that, if a comparative table were made out in regard to that matter, it would be found that some of the circuits which stand the worst by the average of the four elements, would stand among the highest by the average of the fifth element. It must also be borne in mind, that recent Acts of Parliament have thrown upon the County Court Judges various duties which are not measured by the averages of the four elements of the Treasury tables, but which ought also to be taken into account in estimating the aggregate duties and labours of those Judges. In fact, the tendency of recent legislation has been to make progressively, more and more use of those Courts, and the current of public habit seems to have produced a steady increase in the business of those County Courts, as is shown by the tables of the number of plaints preferred and of causes

tried in 1852 and 1853.

"My lords had given the most careful consideration to the extent of the travelling and the number of days of sitting of each Judge, and had statements carefully prepared to show all those points. But after the most mature consideration, it appeared to my lords that the importance of particular Courts should be considered mainly, if not exclusively, in relation to the extent and the character of the judicial duties attached to them as the best indications of the legal and mental qualifications required for them, and not by the physical labour beyond the performance of judical duties attending them, which cannot in any case be considered extreme. There are many of the most important Courts, such as Liverpool, Manchester, and those of the metropolis, where business of the highest class is transacted, and to which no travelling is attached; while in the thinly populated rural districts, where there is most travelling, the business is of a much more insignificant class, as is shown by the average amount for which plaints are entered, and where the judicial business is of an aggregate extent extremely small when compared with some of the others to which their lordships have alluded; and my lords are clearly of opinion, therefore, that there are ample grounds for making a distinction in the emoluments of some of the highest Courts.

"My lords entirely concur with Lord Palmerston in the view expressed by his lordship as to the qualifications and social position which it is desirable Judges of County Courts should possess, but they are not able to discover any grounds for believing that the proposed salaries will not be found sufficient to command a suitable body of Judges, as may be seen from the character and standing of those who freely accept the appointment when vacancies occur.

"But there is, in regard to those matters, a further consideration, which does not turn upon the fluctuations of business in those circuits, and that is the qualification requisite for filling those offices. No man ought to be My lords, therefore, see no reason, at premade a Judge of a County Court who does not sent for enlarging the number of Courts to possess a considerable amount of general in- which the maximum salary should apply. formation and of legal knowledge, and who This addition will be a large charge upon the does not belong to a sufficiently respectable County Court Fund, and such an increase as class of society; and persons so educated, would take place if the whole were raised to so qualified, and so placed in point of social the maximum, would be such as the fund position, must maintain certain appearances could not bear, while such a course would which cannot be sustained without a certain degree of expense; and the general interests of society require that men charged with the administration of justice should be able to maintain a due respectability of outward condition.

again establish an uniformity in the emoluments of the most important, and the least important of the different circuits, which would not be just to the former.

On the 25th October, Lord Palmerston sig"Taking all these things into consideration, nified his approval of the salaries of the fifteen Lord Palmerston is much inclined to think Judges of the circuit first named in their that the rule proposed by the Treasury is far too narrow, and that the maximum salary minute of the 6th instant being increased to ought to be much more extensively granted, if the maximum of 1,500l. a year.

Salaries of County Court Judges.-Parliamentary Proceedings.-Notes of Week.

A Treasury Minute was also issued, dated other special circumstances, have been made 30th January, 1855, to the following effect:-on account of increasing business. My lords are prepared to admit that this is an element which cannot in future be lost sight of, but that any increase of the kind which applies to only one, or even two years, would not be suf ficient to justify a change; and that, before an increase of the salary of any Judge should take place on this ground, it should appear that the requisite increase of business to justify it has extended over an average of at least the preceding three years.”

"My lords have under their consideration vacious memorials from County Court Judges who were not included in the list of those to whom the maximum salary of 1,500l. a year was given, under a minute of the 27th October last; and also a memorial signed by a large number of those Judges in a body.

"Mr. Dinsdale, who disposed of 123 cases. "Referring to these facts and to the amount of other business performed by Mr. Addison and Mr. Serjeant Dowling, my Lords are of opinion that they also are entitled to the maximum salary of 1,500l.

"Referring to the amount of insolvency prison business done by Mr. Dinsdale, which is three times more than that done in any other circuit, except the two just named, and referring also to the position in which he stands in relation to his other business, my lords are of opinion that he is entitled to an intermediate salary of 1,3501.

"My lords also refer to the case of Mr. Furner of the Brighton Circuit, to whom, for the public convenience, a new Court out of his original district, and distant 60 miles from the centre of his district, has been established, and referring also to the position which he otherwise holds in relation to other circuits, my Lords are of opinion that he is entitled to the same intermediate salary of 1,3501.

Notes of the Week.-Superior Courts: Lords Justices.-Rolls.

405

notice did not complete their testimonials of and John Mercer Johnson, jun., Esq., to be due service; and the number entitled to be Solicitor-General and Members of the Execu tive Council for the Province of New Brunswick.

examined was only 82.

Of these, were absent

Withdrew during the Examination
Passed

· Postponed .

The Examiners were Master Templer, of the Court of Exchequer, Mr. Frere, Mr. Maynard, Mr. Ranken, and Mr. Williams.

Mr. George Spilsbury, solicitor, has been appointed Clerk of the Stafford County Court (Circuit No. 26), in the room of Mr. Thomas Edye, resigned.

COSTS AT THE EQUITY JUDGES' CHAMBERS. Messrs. M. Hume and E. D. Maddy have In referring to the additional costs allowed been appointed First Clerks, and Messrs. F. in special matters under the order of 2nd Fe-Drake, W. Walter, and R. G. Harwood, have burary, 1855, not exceeding 10l. 10s., in lieu ritable Trust Commission. been appointed Third Class Clerks in the Chaof the former sum of 1. 18., an error was made at page 371, in the date of the previous order, which should be 23rd October, 1852.

LAW APPOINTMENTS.

THE Queen has been pleased to appoint Charles Fisher, Esq., to be Attorney-General,

Mr. Henry Gordon has been appointed Sheriffs' Clerk of Dumfriesshire.

The Queen has been pleased to appoint the Right Honourable Sir John Young, Bart., Barrister-at-Law, to be her Majesty's Lord High Commissioner in and for the United States of the Ionian Islands.-From the London Gazette of March 20.

RECENT DECISIONS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS.

On the marriage of an infant, her property to which she was entitled under the marriage settlement of her father and mother as tenant in common in tail, was settled, but on her second marriage no settlement was made. The property was afterwards sold, and a declaration of the trust was made in accordance with the settlement, but neither she nor her husband executed it. On payment of the fund into Court under the Trustees' Relief Act, held that a declaration of the rights of the parties could not be made without the consent of her and her husband, and on their refusal a bill was di rected to be filed.

Ir appeared that upon the marriage, in 1790, of an infant, who was entitled under the marriage settlement of her father and mother to a share in certain real estate as tenant in common in tail, a settlement of such property was made, but that none was made on the death of her husband and second marriage, although still a minor. The property was afterwards sold, and a fine levied, and a declaration of trust so far as regarded her share was made whereby it was declared to be held on the trusts of the settlement, but neither she nor her husband executed the deed. The money having been paid into Court under the 10 & 11 Vict. c. 96, this petition was pre

sented under that Act, and the question arose, whether the fund was subject to the settlement, or passed to her as tenant in tail absolutely. The Vice-Chancellor Wood having held that she took absolutely (reported 1 Kay & Johnson, 233), this appeal was presented.

Willcock and W. D. Lewis in support; Rolt and Browell, contrà; Buchanan for other parties.

The Lords Justices said, that they had no jurisdiction to determine the question on the petition unless with the consent of the appellants, and on their refusing to consent, the case was directed to stand over in order to file a bill.

VISE OF PRESENTATION TO RECTORY.

A testatrix by will devised the presentation to a rectory to her son Henry upon his obtaining a qualification to assume holy orders, and in default of his obtaining no such qualification, then the presentation should vest in her son Charles, and if he should not be qualified then to her third son Thomas. Neither Henry nor Charles were qualified, and Thomas died, having left his interest to his son: Held, on special case, that such son was entitled.

THIS was a special case, from which it appeared that the testatrix, Mrs. Hatch, by her will devised the presentation to the rectory of Sutton, in the county of Surrey, to her son

406

Superior Courts: Rolls.-V. C. Kindersley.

Henry upon his obtaining a qualification to assume holy orders, and if he obtained no such qualification, then that the presentation should vest in her son Charles, and if he should not be qualified then to her third son Thomas. Neither Henry nor Charles were qualified, and Thomas devised his interest in the presentation to his son Henry John, who was now in possession.

Lloyd, R. Palmer, Faber, A. Smith, and Bristowe, for the several parties.

The Master of the Rolls said that the devise was a successive devise to the three sons, and that after that to Henry and Charles had taken effect and been satisfied, it would go to Thomas, who had bequeathed his successive interest to his son, who was therefore entitled.

Vice-Chancellor Kindersley.
Yeates v. Roberis. March 6, 1855.
FRIENDLY SOCIETY.-EXPULSION OF MEM-
BERS.—DELIVERY UP DEPOSIT NOTES TO

TRUSTEES.

Under one of the rules, which were registered and duly certified under the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 115, s. 13, of an odd-fellows' district lodge, it was provided that if any member made default in paying his subscription he should be first fined 1s., next suspended, and finally expelled. Upon disputes having arisen between the members, the defendant and others refused to pay their subscriptions, and were expelled under the above rule: Held, that the plaintiffs who were appointed trustees were entitled to recover from the defendant the deposit notes which were in his hands as secretary and grandmaster, independently of the question as to the legality of the expulsion.

IT appeared that by one of the rules of a district odd-fellows' lodge called the Briton's Lion Lodge, and which were registered and duly certified under the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 115, s. 13, it was provided that if any member should make default in the payment of his subscriptions he should first be fined 1s., next suspended, and finally expelled. Disputes afterwards arose between the members, and the defendant and others refused to pay their subscriptions, and were expelled under the above rule, and the defendant refused to deliver up to the plaintiffs, who had been appointed trustees, certain deposit notes for moneys paid from time to time into Messrs. Attwood and Spooner's bank at Birmingham, and which were in his possession as secretary and grand-master, until the question of the propriety of the expulsion were determined, whereupon the plaintiffs filed this bill to obtain the same.

Selwyn and Osler in support, citing Hodges v. Wale, W. R., 1853-4, p. 65.

Glasse and Pownall for the defendant. The Vice-Chancellor said that the plaintiffs were clearly entitled to receive the notes, and a decree was made accordingly, with costs.

Other v. Iveson. March 14, 1855.
BANKER.-ADVANCE ON JOINT CHEQUE.—

RIGHT AGAINST ESTATE OF A DECEASED
DRAWER.

It appeared that on A. and T. being desirous
of borrowing money from a bank, the loan
was refused, unless W., their brother, joined
in drawing the cheque, and which he ac-
cordingly did. Upon W.'s death, held that
the bank could not treat the debt as several
and charge his estate therewith, but that it
was joint, and the survivors H. and T.
alone were liable.

IT appeared that on Mr. Arthur and Mr. Thomas Iveson being desirous of borrowing a sum of 500l. from the Swaledale and Wensleydale Banking Company, the bank refused to make the advance unless their brother William joined in the cheque, which he accordingly did on June 2, 1848, in the ordinary form. William afterwards died, and the bank now filed this bill, by their public officer, seeking to charge his estate with the debt, on the ground that the security was joint and several.

Glasse and Fleming for the plaintiff; Baily and Birkbeck for the trustees; Whiteley for the executors.

The Vice-Chancellor said, that the case of Thorpe v. Jackson, 2 Y. & C. Exch., 553, which had been cited, did not support the proposition that bankers or any person lending money to three individuals on their joint cheque, note, or bond were entitled simpliciter to bring a sepa rate action against one, precisely as if the security had been in express terms joint and se veral. The estate of William was therefore not liable, and the bill would be dismissed in that respect with costs, and as against Arthur and Thomas Iveson, without costs.

Houlding v. Cross. March 15, 1855.

WILL.-CONSTRUCTION.-FAILURE OF GIFT
OF FURNITURE, &C., IN SPECIFIC HOUSE,

BY SUBSEQUENT REMOVAL.

A testator, by his will, after describing him-
self as of "Bromfield Place, Ealing, in
the County of Middlesex," gave inter alia
to his wife for life, all the household
furniture, &c., and other articles and
things which should be either upon
or about
his "said dwelling-house and belonging
to him at the time of his decease. He
afterwards removed to Battersea, where he
died: Held, on special case, that the gift
thereby failed.

of THIS was a special case for the opinion the Court, from which it appeared that the testator, John Houlding, by his will, which commenced describing himself as of "Bromfield Place, Ealing, in the county of Middlesex," gave (inter alia) to his wife for life, all the household furniture, plate, &c., and other articles and things which should be in, upon, or about his "said dwelling-house," and belong to him at the time of his decease. The testator afterwards removed to Battersea, where

Superior Courts: V. C. Kindersley.-V. C. Stuart.-V. C. Wood.

he died; and the question arose whether the gift of the furniture, &c., failed.